Certain of the discussion above seems to me to represent a very deep misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution and its relationship to the role of religion in American life. The initial post included a great deal of information concerning the interpretation of these matters by those who consider the U.S.A. to be a "Christian nation" and who then reason that God and the Christian religion therefore should be granted certain prominence and recognition in the public life of the nation. Those holding this view argue strongly that prayers and Bible reading in the public schools are constitutionally permissible activities and that the display of the 10 Commandments on public property, even in the absence of any displays of the tenets of other beliefs, is also constitutional. The contrary view, in the initial post, is to the effect that religious matters do not belong under the control of secular government and that therefore government, including local public school boards, have no constitutional authority to selectively promote the Christian religion by means of instituting prayers in public school classrooms or other points of assembly.
"Bill" above, takes to task "upsidedehead" for "being so against having Christian influence in our local, state and federal leadership," for not liking "God in America," and for (perhaps in some other post, since I find none of that here) believing that "God has abandoned Israel."
Leaving aside the matter of Israel for now, since it is not apparent what the details of that argument might be, I submit that the post from "Bill" following the initial post by "upsidedehead" seems not to have addressed any of the numerous facts and arguments within the two rather informative and well-argued attachments that "upsidedehead" submitted to support his post. "Bill" submitted nothing that disputes the description of the displays in the Supreme Court building or that defends David Barton against the charges that he plays free and loose--and possibly dishonestly--with his use of alleged statements from the founding fathers. Rather than meet these issues head-on, "Bill" chooses to interrogate "upsidedehead" about his personal beliefs and religious affiliation, which seems rather peripheral to the topic in the post.
There are many, many people who are devoutly religious Christians but who do not want anyone in their local, state, or federal governments directing religious exercises in public schools or selectively promoting Judeo-Christian concepts through such measures as the placement of 10 Commandments displays on public property. These people are not against "God in America."
They simply want government to take its proper role, a role that does not extend to becoming an arm for the promotion of Judeo-Christian precepts or other systems of religious belief.
I have recently heard a great deal of comment from conservative politicians who are in favor of government being "limited" and avoiding intrusions into the personal business of the citizens. It is hard for me to understand how someone can hold to that view and at the same time argue that government may legitimately use its authority to influence matters that are as deeply personal as religion!